"If you don't like it then you can get out!" lol. bloody yanks.
The GI is over rated and flawed, I've posted on this several times but nobody seems to be able to get past it. Foods like potatoes are high GI but are an excellent choice on a diet because of their high satiety. As for nowhere to carbs to go besides glycogen... how about oxidized for energy?
The reason they are fat is because of calories, drinking coke and eating some high carb foods are high in calories (for example, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich). This isn't taking into account major factors, such as lack of exercise, which is THE most important factor in this case.
To prevent this from getting to nit picking, I'm not advocating pigging out on carbs all day, merely stating that "carbs turn into fat, especially after 6pm" is a load of nonsense.
1) Carbohydrate metabolism and de novo lipogenesis in human obesity.
Acheson KJ, Schutz Y, Bessard T, Flatt JP, Jéquier E
Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jan ; 45(1): 78-85
Respiratory exchange was measured during 14 consecutive hours in six lean and six obese individuals after ingestion of 500 g of dextrin maltose to investigate and compare their capacity for net de novo lipogenesis. After ingestion of the carbohydrate load, metabolic rates rose similarly in both groups but fell earlier and more rapidly in the obese. RQs also rose rapidly and remained in the range of 0.95 to 1.00 for approximately 8 h in both groups. During this time, RQ exceeded 1.00 for only short periods of time with the result that 4 +/- 1 g and 5 +/- 3 g (NS) of fat were synthesized via de novo lipogenesis in excess of concomitant fat oxidation in the lean and obese subjects, respectively. Results demonstrate that net de novo lipid synthesis from an unusually large carbohydrate load is not greater in obese than in lean individuals.
I know this is going to go against the holy grail of DC cliffs notes, but again, no carbs after 6pm because "metabolism slows down" is based on logic that could be learned in one week of an introductory nutrition class.
It's 8:00 for me now, I'm going to go eat some oatmeal, hopefully I will return to Mecca in a few minutes and still be able to see my penis.
The only real advantage to not eating carbs past 6 PM is that you eat stuff like egg whites, chicken, etc...... instead of eating ice cream, chips, nachos, pizza, etc.
Sure, if you want, but all that needs to be said is "I agree".Quote
I guess it all depends of the context and the goals. Is the goal sport nutrition or weight loss? These are two very different situations. Of course carbs will be used for ATP production first as well as glycogen production, but when in excess (and that means also excess calories), lipogenesis is the other route for dealing with the amount of glucose entering the cell, as the excess acetyl CoA has to go somewhere. Biochem says that the excess Acetyl CoA (or excess citrate in the first stages of the citric cycle) is taken out of the mitochondria to get into the lipogenetic pathway in the cytosol.
And yes, if there is a high energy expenditure, more ATP will be needed. With the high GI food, the biggest problem is the high release of insulin, which promotes lipogenesis. But yes, it requires excess energy to create fat.
I haven't read the full paper quoted yet; it would be interesting to know what else the subjects were consuming (how much calories all day), level of activity, fasting prior etc.
The no carb after 6 pm might be indicated in weight loss to limit the excess calories and cravings for more, but is not relevant in trained individuals with a different body composition to overweight bodies.
I am interested in a reference for potatoes creating satiety?? I tend to have 6 or 8 potatoes and still cry potatoe famine.
Edit: if anybody wants any of these full texts, PM me.
De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999 Apr ; 53 Suppl 1: S53-65
The enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate (CHO) into fat, or de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is present in humans, whereas the capacity to convert fats into CHO does not exist. Here, the quantitative importance of DNL in humans is reviewed, focusing on the response to increased intake of dietary CHO. Eucaloric replacement of dietary fat by CHO does not induce hepatic DNL to any substantial degree. Similarly, addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy. It is concluded that DNL is not the pathway of first resort for added dietary CHO, in humans. Under most dietary conditions, the two major macronutrient energy sources (CHO and fat) are therefore not interconvertible currencies; CHO and fat have independent, though interacting, economies and independent regulation. The metabolic mechanisms and physiologic implications of the functional block between CHO and fat in humans are discussed, but require further investigation.
There's a difference between GI and Insulin index, the GI is flawed.Quote
Exactly. No carbs after 6pm means no ice cream, pizza, nachos, easy snack foods.Quote
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1995 Sep;49(9):675-90.
A satiety index of common foods.
Holt SH, Miller JC, Petocz P, Farmakalidis E.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to produce a validated satiety index of common foods. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Isoenergetic 1000 kJ (240 kcal) servings of 38 foods separated into six food categories (fruits, bakery products, snack foods, carbohydrate-rich foods, protein-rich foods, breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13 subjects. Satiety ratings were obtained every 15 min over 120 min after which subjects were free to eat ad libitum from a standard range of foods and drinks. A satiety index (SI) score was calculated by dividing the area under the satiety response curve (AUC) for the test food by the group mean satiety AUC for white bread and multiplying by 100. Thus, white bread had an SI score of 100% and the SI scores of the other foods were expressed as a percentage of white bread. RESULTS: There were significant differences in satiety both within and between the six food categories. The highest SI score was produced by boiled potatoes (323 +/- 51%) which was seven-fold higher than the lowest SI score of the croissant (47 +/- 17%). Most foods (76%) had an SI score greater than or equal to white bread. The amount of energy eaten immediately after 120 min correlated negatively with the mean satiety AUC responses (r = -0.37, P < 0.05, n = 43) thereby supporting the subjective satiety ratings. SI scores correlated positively with the serving weight of the foods (r = 0.66, P < 0.001, n = 38) and negatively with palatability ratings (r = -0.64, P < 0.001, n = 38). Protein, fibre, and water contents of the test foods correlated positively with SI scores (r = 0.37, P < 0.05, n = 38; r = 0.46, P < 0.01; and r = 0.64, P < 0.001; respectively) whereas fat content was negatively associated (r = -0.43, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The results show that isoenergetic servings of different foods differ greatly in their satiating capacities. This is relevant to the treatment and prevention of overweight and obesity.
Eating more often does increase your metabolism (TEF) thermic effect of feeding. Particularly if you are eating just vegetables because your body has to digest the food, assimilate the nutrients and excrete the waste products and this requires calories. It may not be much but i believe it certainly helps.
I also saw this in Milos Sarcev Secret of The Pros DVD regarding nutrition on youtube he said the same thing.
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. [b] A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. [b/] Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.